Numerous odd problems with True Image 2010 build 7046

A few thoughts.

1. Regarding the missing backups: When browsing for backup, use the horizontal scroll bar and move the screen laterally so the right edge is displayed. YOu should be able to see the backup files. If they are not listed (without browsing), once you find them, you can right click and add them to the listing. Using the Task edit function is discouraged. You will get more predictable results by creating a new task rather than editing an old one.

2. TI works in backup sets. A set is a full backup (which is the base) and optionally additional incrmental's. Task 2 cannot add a incremental because it has no base (full). So, the first backup on task 2 will have to a full backup before the incremental can be performed. Task 2 and Task 1 are separate items and cannot be combined.

3. You can reach your goal with only one task.
Create a task to create one full plus whatever number of incremental's you wish.
Set the task to monthly or 1st--whatever is your choice.

3a. During the time period within the month, you can create your incremental's by either start TI manually by opening the program and clicking the start task function; or you can create a desktop shortcut and create your random incremental's by initiating the backup via the desktop shortcut at a time of your choosing.

4. Or, you can supplement your backups by creating task 2 which would create a backup on a weekly basis. The first week, another full would be created and then on weeks 2-3-4, the incremental's would be created based on a specific schedule.

5. If you want more options or more controls, look at the free Chain2Gen (C2G) helper program for TIH.
......TIH does the scheduling and the backups. C2G does the managing of when a full is created and allows you to maintain several sets of backups. More info can be found via item 3B and 3A inside my signature index below.

GroverH wrote:

2. TI works in backup sets. A set is a full backup (which is the base) and optionally additional incrmental's. Task 2 cannot add a incremental because it has no base (full). So, the first backup on task 2 will have to a full backup before the incremental can be performed. Task 2 and Task 1 are separate items and cannot be combined.

Then that is a huge departure from the way True Image used to work, in v10 and v11 I could create one task to do the full backup and a second task to do the incremental backups and it worked. I also never had a problem finding archives in either of those versions. They just worked.

I'll probably just go back to v11 and not bother with the 2010 version and not buy anymore upgrades. Backups are VERY IMPORTANT and right now I don't have enough confidence in the 2010 version to fully trust it with my backups.

I am also taking a long look at Norton Ghost, years ago I used it in a variety of ways from transferring systems to new drives to creating backups and as I recall it never failed me. The only thing I didn't like about it was that it had to run in a real DOS so you couldn't use your computer while the backup was being made and it didn't have an incremental backup either. Hopefully both of those problems don't exist anymore and if not, I'll more than likely go back to useing Ghost. If they do I'll probably just go back to True Image v11.

Greetings Gene,

I'm no expert but I've been using computers since 1980 and I've observed a few things during that time. The Windows environment is particularly subject to "your mileage may vary" phenomena because you have a standard O/S but it is running on a myriad of systems (made by different manufacturers) using a myriad of peripherals (made by different manufacturers). I assume Acronis develops its software for an environment that it hopes will work for the majority of users. Before I bought Acronis I did some due diligence and there are rave reviews out there for stability, speed, technical content, etc. There are also some that speak of "that piece of crap." Few but some. Your issues may be more system related than anything else.

You can always run TI manually from the command prompt. The results are reported to be more reliable and cleaner.

As for Norton, it is an old standby. I've used it myself. But when you try to get it off your system watch out. Norton is notorious for putting deep hooks into the system. It's anti-virus product has a specially developed "removal tool" to get the majority of the junk out. You have to know about it and download it from their website. I don't know to what extent this is also the case for Ghost.

Good luck.

GL

x

I am trying the current version of Ghost and am finding it is very similar to True Image. It now runs in Windows instead of being a pure DOS program and it now has incremental backups. But like more recent versions of True Image it also uses backup sets thus preventing me from creating the backup system I want whoich would have two independent backup sets.

I have two external drives that are my backup media. On one drive I store backups from even numbered months and on the other drive I store backups from odd numbered months. On the first satrrday of each month I delete all the files on the backup drive for that month and do a full backup. Then on each subsequent Saturday I do an incremental backup.

From what I've seen, True Image v11 is the last version that could do this because all backup set information was stored in the archive files instead the program trying to keep track of it itself. Unfortunately, since I hadn't used Ghost in a ong while I don't know when they introduced these new features. Since I do have a license for True Image v11, I will most likely just go back to it.

Gene Warner wrote:

This software seems so full of bugs I honestly have to wonder if Acronis even bothers to test their software before releasing it.

This is precisely THE point !

I warned Acronis already several times about the danger of releasing products without sufficient quality control. 

Who cares about "new" products with new names, but taking over the known bugs and adding new bugs ? Most irritating (for me) is the fact that marketing managers of software houses believe that products should have the year included in the product's name.

Software is NOT wine ! Like "The Beaujolais Nouveau est arrivé ! "

Marketing wants customers to believe that the moment of EACH YEAR has come ... to buy. Wether the wine is good or bad, you must drink the nouvea u Beaujolais NOW.

So is the SoftwareProduct_2010 supposed to be ready for sale at recurrent time of the year.

This puts a psychological stress to software developers, and the finishing touch to release a tested software is never reached.

Even if the developers team does not consider "the coming new "versionnumber " (as we used to call it in the past) as a release-candidate , nowadays ,  the marketing boys will demand to release the software Productname-YEAR right anyway on deadline time.

Even worse, we customers are supposed to be stupid enough to believe that this YEAR the new product is better, because it is newer. Even Microsoft has finally understood that this was not the smartest strategy ! 

Customers will mention problems ...  some time later after purchase. But after after 30 days of "free" support (should we say thank you ?) Acronis considers that a customer's forum is a normal substitute to do the "support job" (unless customers are willing to pay for a "case by case" additional support after 30 days !!

Acronis management answered my remarks, assuring me that every effort is made to deliver each product that has  thoroughly been tested. What else can we expect for answer ?

As we see, this is simply impossible and this forum is confirming my warnings. 

Gene Warner wrote:

Does anyone know of some decent alternatives to True Image? If I can find something I like that's reasonably quick I'll switch immediately....

DITO

Symantec has a 30 day trial of Norton Ghost available which is what I'm using now. If I decide I like it, Amazon.com has it for $30 instead of the $70 Symantec wants.

Side note, I wonder where Acronis got this forum software because it's buggy too. I tried to edit my account and can't because it requires you to enter your e-mail address and it chokes because the e-mail address is already in use!

Maybe I'll just give up on Acronis completely.

Amen to what you say Georges. Even the Beaujolais Nouveau is not always what its cracked up to be. You are absolutely correct in everything you say. The sad fact is that companies all too rarely fail to listen to their user base until its too late. The marketing types come in for a lot of flak, and deservedly so in many cases, but a lot of the blame also attaches to higher levels of management who have never been near the coalface (or have moved away from it too long ago for them to remember).

I used to work for a major, and I mean major (not Microsoft) software vendor in both a technical sales and technical support role across Europe, the Middle East and Africa. I used to spend my evenings on intercontinental phone calls trying to persuade the organisation to focus on what mattered to the customer, but all too often you could convince an individual but the system was against you.

Acronis needs to take someone (sponsored by the CEO) from their organisation (or go outside if they don't believe they have the skills - and I believe the skills are rare) and have them read through every post entered in this forum over say the past 12 months and then compile a document which lists and prioritises that their customers believe they need to act on. This is not at all a simple task, although it sounds like it is. I know there are other things that need doing that customers do not necessarially request, especially in terms of meeting upcoming hardware and software compatibility issues, but a major part of their development effort ought to be directed towards addressing what the existing customers are talking about - people usually put up with a lot before they start venting in forums because that takes effort, so Acronis needs to appreciate they are probably only seeing the tip of the iceberg in terms of customer satisfaction in these forums. I cannot believe it took them so long to take on board the Chain2Gen concept - this was so basic a requirement it defied belief that it was not there. I think the fact that it took them so long to introduce, it just proves the point you have so eloquently made.